🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is set to argue before the Britain's highest judicial body that it possesses state immunity from accusations that it deployed surveillance software on the devices of two dissidents during their stay in London.

Legal Battle Background

Bahrain has been denied its sovereign immunity claim in both lower court and appellate court. Bringing the matter to the supreme court demonstrates the significance of this issue for the nation's international reputation.

Should Bahrain prevail, the ruling could have broader consequences for how authoritarian states utilize digital spyware to monitor and potentially harass opposition figures living in the United Kingdom.

Central Issue of Legal Proceedings

The legal proceedings, scheduled to begin this midweek, will concentrate on whether the two men have the standing to seek compensation despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than determining whether damages are applicable.

Claims and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahrain authorities used Germany-produced FinFisher spyware to infiltrate their electronic devices while they were living in London, causing emotional distress. The court of appeal last autumn upheld a previous court decision that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not grant Bahrain state protection against their claims.

Article 5 of the legislation states that a country does not have immunity from legal actions for personal injury resulting from an act or omission that occurred in the UK.

The ruling will also offer guidance regarding additional spyware claims being handled by legal teams on behalf of affected individuals.

Software Capabilities

Attorneys stated that "FinSpy software can collect large quantities of data from compromised equipment, including recording all keyboard inputs, voice calls, messages, electronic mail, calendar records, real-time chats, address books, internet activity, photos, data collections, documents and videos. It allows recording of real-time sound from the equipment's audio input and visual recording device."

Legal Interpretation

The appellate court found that remote manipulation, overseas, of a computer located in the UK constituted an action within the British territory. Although the hacking took place overseas, the consequence was that the national jurisdiction of the United Kingdom had been violated.

A foreign state does not have immunity for psychological harm resulting from an action in the UK, even if some acts take place abroad. The judicial body also determined that "psychological harm" as interpreted in the immunity legislation included standalone psychiatric injury.

Defense Position

The appeal court ruling stated that Bahrain denied the accusers' claims of compromising the activists' devices with surveillance software, but the initial court justice "determined, on the based on expert evidence, that the claimants had discharged the responsibility upon them of demonstrating on the preponderance of evidence that their computers were infected by malicious software by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, welcomed with the supreme court hearing, saying: "I'm satisfied with the outcome so far of the court case regarding the cyber intrusion of my computer. It sends a strong signal to overseas authorities who pursue their non-violent critics with multiple methods including violating their private lives and devices."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after facing frequent detention within the nation, stated: "Our journey has now reached the highest court in the country. I have a responsibility to reveal what I endured when I am convinced Bahrain compromised my device. The impact has been profound – especially for those who placed their trust in me, and for my loved ones."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be held accountable for wrecking our lives. They cannot be permitted to use state protection to advance their transnational repression on UK territory."

The two individuals have had their nationality revoked.

Legal Perspective

A lead attorney stated: "These proceedings raise fundamental questions about accountability for the deployment of invasive monitoring systems against political activists and members of civil society. Our clients, and numerous additional people we advocate for, have waited a long time for clarity on these issues."